Undue restrictions is the key phrase here.

But no, here's some irrelevant anecdata that I think proves my already defeated case.

I wonder how much it cost the gun lobby to buy her.

The only crime here is that terrible photoshop job on that poster.. Watch much Daily Show?

This women entered the room clearly believing the bullshit from the right that 'NAZI LIBERALS WANT TO FORCEFULLY TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!!!!' She got rolled. No need to mention the fact that a women with a gun in her home is more likely to die from that gun than kill an intruder, or that under the proposed laws the woman in her story would still be able to legally own a shotgun.

And that photoshop, lol. Craptastic! looks like it was done by someone with little skill or thrown together in five minutes.

Exactly. This is the result of living in a bubble, receiving only positive reinforcement of one's delusions from like-minded individuals. This is not just some righteous nutter regurgitating gun lobby dogma. It's religion.

I have a remington 870 too!

That's all.

but..but....LIBERALS WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!

if I say it enough, it's true!!!

what an epic fail. I like how in the thumbnail she's sitting right next to LaPierre. yeah, you're real credible when you're sitting next the VP of the biggest gun lobby in America....nope...not biased at all.

this really isn't just a gun control/rights issue. You have to follow the money on this one and when the profits are at stake here, you're not going to get objective testimony.

So, correct me if any of this is not what the legislation proposes:

They don't want to seize any firearms you already own - with no exceptions

They want to take away America's ability to purchase some firearms - so those firearms would be taken away from dealers and you would no longer be able to buy those firearms or their components.

Over time you may not be able to repair some types of firearms you own and eventually they'll be out of circulation.

They propose to restrict the resale of some firearms and their components, restricting the trade in these firearms sorts.

So if I proposed to legislate that everyone has to use plastic spoons from now on, and nobody can buy/trade/fabricate metal spoons or any parts that make up a metal spoon from now on - everyone would agree that I'm not taking away your spoons. I'm just taking away your future metal spoons, your children's potential to buy metal spoons when they grow up, and your ability to maintain your metal spoons.

that would be an excellent question for your elected officials as I never claimed to be an expert on the legislation, so you should ask them, not me

Ms. Trotter attempted to mislead everyone by trying to tug at your heartstrings and tell a heartfelt tale of a woman defending her child and her home with her weapon. Trying to imply that this poor woman wouldn't be able to defend herself because big bad gov't would take her gun away.

EXCEPT THEY WOULDN'T BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY THE WEAPON SHE WAS USING!!!

Ms. Trotter tried to pull a fast one and she FAILED MISERABLY

I didn't ask a question. I said to correct me if I was wrong (totally optional - no obligation). I'm pretty sure I'm correct in what I've written.

The point being the assertion that "no one wants to take your guns" is misleading. They do want to take some firearms out of circulation, restrict the trade of those models left in private ownership, and prevent future generations from acquiring them. They're just not going to take them away from you if you already own them.

Are you attempting to express shouting with your capitalisation? That is the generally accepted translation.

The point is not what I said, but what Ms. Trotter said. If you don't wish to discuss the video or Ms. Trotter's remarks, then I'm not going to waste my time pointlessly jousting with you.

The point is that Ms. Trotter falsely attempted to deceive people that the government would take away the weapon the mother used. So I will say again that this is a false statement. A lie, if you will. Or perhaps you can be the one to correct me and the legislators. Are they going to take away the mother's Remington shotgun? Again, I don't claim to be an expert on the legislation, but the legislators in the room seemed to indicate that they are, in fact, NOT going to take away the weapon she used. Is that incorrect? And yes, these are questions directed to you, I hope you can do a better job than Ms. Trotter at answering it.

Again, if you have a concern with the legislation, I suggest you take it up with an elected official, someone who can address your confusion adequately. Maybe you can actually constructively contribute to said legislation and play a positive role in the law-making process.

Harlequinn I would say you are correct. Only metal spoons aren't harmful to anyone (accept those like myself with a metal allergy..) and the guns that will eventually be unavailable can mow down a dozen people in about 30 seconds, blasting them into bits. So, it's a bit different.

I personally feel the solution to 'assault weapons' is to make them available at gun ranges. That way folks who want to be able to fire them, can still have access to them, but they are still restricted to have in ones home and thus cannot be used in violence. Just the way some shooting ranges offer military weapons a civilian cannot get access to any other way.

And for the record I'm relatively pro-gun. I don't own any but I grew up with them, received my first as a birthday present when I was 10 and my mother owns two and her boyfriend makes his own rifles for use in competition.

If congress manages to only do one thing about the gun violence in this nation, I'd personally rather see it be a national gun registry that would allow instant background checks at gun shows/etc. You know things are bad when someone on the terror watch list can buy an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine, armor piercing bullets and a flack jacket out of the back of a van and it's perfectly legal in some states. That's an extreme example I grant, but not unrealistic.

The main reason that you don't need to mention that is because it's not true.

Upvoted for Cenk not going totally nuts on a video...and the info was good too

That's your point. I'm not addressing that or arguing against it (since it is self-evident).

I'm addressing "but..but....LIBERALS WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!", something you wrote.

To answer your questions I'll firstly point out that what I wrote in addition to reading the proposed firearms ban list, answers them sufficiently already. No, the legislation does not propose to take the particular type of firearm in her example. No you are not incorrect.

Does anyone out there believe I am correct or incorrect in what I wrote in regards to the misleading comments about taking guns?

I don't live in America and I'm not American. It happens to be a hobby of mine following changes in American legislation.

Maybe you can actually play a constructive role in the formation of the new legislation. Assuming you live in America, are American, and lobby your politicians.

I totally agree. Firearms are items that should be highly regulated. Much more regulated than they currently are in the USA.

A registration scheme, compulsory background checks, mandatory safe storage, a requirement for membership at a firearms club for ownership of centrefire semi-automatic and automatic rifles, and a nation-wide free mental health system would be the path I would pursue.

"You know things are bad when someone on the terror watch list...." Please Xiaelao, spare us the insulting terminology, no such fucking thing as terror.

No, you know things are bad when you have such a completely bullshit phraseology as "Terror Watch List", "terror alert level (insert color here), "no fly list", etc. The term "gun control" is being replaced in the U.S. media with the psycho-cyberdine phraseology, "gun safety", because these cunts are helpless to conceal their own fuck-ups.

...a few more that have become entrenched in the lexicon of acceptable terminology for verbal camouflage, friendly fire, collateral damage, and other euphemistic language designed to conceal reality....
It killed Carlin to watch it-"Poor people used to live in slums, now the economically disadvantaged occupy sub-standard housing in the inner cities."

Wool + Eyes = Pull

You can object to the terminology (and obviously you do) but that -is- the name off the list. There is nothing wrong with someone using that name as a reference...it's a clear, unambiguous reference to which particular list he's talking about.

Frankly, the terminology is the last thing I'm concerned about. I object to the loss of civil rights we've suffered over the last 12 years, to little or no positive effect. If it were up to me, we'd be operating just as we did before 9/11, with the exception of locks on the pilot's side of the cockpit door.

Anti-Gun PSA Makes the Case for Women With Guns has been added as a related post - related requested by VoodooV on that post.